1809. Facto autem ostendit, cum dicit et cum intinxisset panem, dedit Iudae Simonis Iscariotae. Hinc aliqui dicunt, hunc panem fuisse corpus Christi consecratum. Sed hoc, secundum Augustinum, non est verum. Nam, sicut ex aliis Evangeliis habetur. Dominus cum coenaret, discipulis corpus suum dedit: et ideo patet quod Iudas cum aliis discipulis simul corpus Christi accepit in coena. Christus autem postquam aliquantulum in coena processerat, surrexit a coena, et lavit pedes discipulorum, quibus lotis resedit, et postmodum panem tinctum Iudae tradidit. Unde patet quod non erat corpus Christi.
1809. He identifies the betrayer by an action when he says, and when he had dipped the bread, he gave it to Judas Iscariot, the son of Simon. Some say that this bread was the consecrated body of Christ. But, according to Augustine, this is not so. For it is clear from the other Evangelists that our Lord gave his body to the disciples while he was having supper. Thus it is evident that Judas received the body of Christ at the same time as the other disciples, that is, during the supper. During the course of this meal Jesus rose and washed the feet of the disciples and returned to his place. And it was only after this that he gave the bread to Judas. Clearly, this was not the body of Christ.
1810. Sequitur designationis effectus, cum dicit et post buccellam introivit in eum satanas.
1810. He continues with the effect of this identification, saying, and after the morsel, satan entered into him.
Sed quaeritur hic quomodo satanas in hominem intrat?
Here we might ask how satan enters into a person.
Ad quod dicendum, quod satanam intrare in hominem, potest intelligi dupliciter. Quia intrare potest in corpus hominis, sicut patet in his qui corporaliter a daemonio vexantur; et sic potest diabolus essentialiter in hominem intrare. Vel potest intelligi intrare in mentem, ita quod menti daemon essentialiter illabatur. Et sic nullus potest intrare in hominem nisi solus Deus. Anima enim rationalis non habet dimensiones quantitatis, ut aliquid in ea esse dicatur, quasi infra eius dimensionem contentum sit. Nihil potest in ea esse nisi quod ei dat esse, quod est ibi per virtutem suam. Ubi autem est virtus Dei, ibi est et essentia Dei: in Deo enim idem est essentia et virtus. Manifestum est ergo quod Deus essentialiter est in anima.
I answer that there are two ways of understanding satan’s entering into a person. He could enter into a person’s body, as in the case of those who are physically molested by a devil. In this way the devil can essentially enter into a person. Or, we might take it to mean that the devil enters into a person’s mind, so that the devil would essentially penetrate the mind. However, no one but God can enter into a person in this way. Now the rational soul does not have quantitative dimensions so that something could be in it except what gives it existence, which is there by its own power. Now where the power of God is, there also is his essence: for in God essence and power are the same. So it is clear that God is in the soul essentially.
Dicitur tamen diabolus illabi menti humanae per effectum et affectum malitiae, inquantum scilicet homo ab eo seductus, sequitur eum ad perpetrandum malum.
Yet the devil can enter into the human mind in the sense that a person who has been seduced by him follows him in doing evil; this is an effect of the devil’s malice, which someone has loved.
1811. Sed cum supra dixerit: cum diabolus iam misisset in cor ut traderet eum Iudas, hic autem dicit introivit in eum satanas: videtur aliud esse mittere et intrare.
1811. It was said above: the devil having now put into the heart of Judas Iscariot, the son of Simon, to betray him (John 13:2). But now he says, satan entered into him.
Sed ad hoc dicendum, quod hoc non est dictum ad significandum differentiam, sed ad insinuandum augmentum malitiae. Tunc enim dicitur diabolus immittere aliquod malum in cor hominis cum homo praebet ei assensum ad malum, tamen cum quadam trepidatione an hoc facere debeat; sed tunc intrat in cor quando homo totaliter dat se ad sequendum eius instinctum, et in nullo ei resistit. Intravit ergo in eum satanas, ut plenius possideret, et ad perpetrandum malitiam duceret, in quem prius miserat ut deciperet.
So there seems to be a difference between ‘put into’ and ‘enter into’. I say that this was not said to indicate a difference, but to note a growth in evil. The devil is said to put something evil into a person’s heart when the person yields to him and assents to the evil, but with some fear as to whether he ought to do this or not. But he enters into a person’s heart when one totally gives himself to following his suggestions and offers no resistance at all. Thus satan first put the plan to deceive Christ into Judas, and then he entered into to possess him more completely and to lead him to accomplish the evil.
1812. Quaeritur quare Lc. XXII, 3, dicatur, quod intravit satanas in eum, quod quidem fuit antequam buccellam acciperet. Et hoc est contra illud quod Ioannes hic dicit, scilicet quod post buccellam introivit satanas in eum.
1812. One might ask why Luke says that satan entered into Judas even before he received the morsel (Luke 22:3). This seems to conflict with what John says here, that after the morsel, satan entered into him.
Responsio. Dicendum, quod tunc introivit ad proditionem faciendam, sed nunc introivit ad eam exequendam et complendam.
I answer that in the first cast satan entered into him to plan the betrayal, but now he entered into him to accomplish and complete it.
1813. Sed numquid buccellam dare Iudae, post quam introivit in eum Satanas, fuit malum?
1813. Was it wrong to give Judas this morsel, for after that satan would enter into him?
Responsio. Dicendum quod non. Sed ipse Iudas cum esset malus, bono usus est male. Sic cum quis indigne accipit Eucharistiam, quod bonum est et optimum, male accipit, et vertitur sibi in malum, quia iudicium sibi manducat et bibit: I Cor. XI, 29.
I say, no. Judas himself was evil, and used a good thing in an evil way. In a similar way, when someone unworthily receives the Eucharist, which is good and even the best of things, he receives it in an evil way and it turns out to be evil for him, because he eats and drinks judgment upon himself (1 Cor 11:29).
Lectio 5
Lecture 5
Judas exit
Judas leaves
13:27 Et post bucellam introivit in eum satanas. Et dicit ei Iesus: quod facis, fac citius. [n. 1815]
13:27 And after the morsel, Satan entered into him. And Jesus said to him: that which you do, do quickly. [n. 1815]
13:28 Hoc autem nemo scivit discumbentium ad quid dixerit ei. [n. 1816]
13:28 Now no man at the table knew to what purpose he said this to him. [n. 1816]
13:29 Quidam enim putabant, quia loculos habebat Iudas, quod dixisset ei Iesus: eme ea quae opus sunt nobis ad diem festum: aut egenis ut aliquid daret. [n. 1819]
13:29 For some thought, because Judas had the money bag, that Jesus had said to him: buy those things which we have need of for the festival day: or that he should give something to the poor. [n. 1819]
13:30 Cum ergo accepisset ille buccellam, exivit continuo. Erat autem nox. [n. 1822]
13:30 He therefore having received the morsel, went out immediately. And it was night. [n. 1822]
1814. Posita praenuntiatione futurae proditionis hic ponitur consummatio ipsius rei praenuntiatae, scilicet perpetratio proditionis, et
1814. We now see the betrayal itself, after it was predicted.
primo promittit Iudae adimplere quod dixerat;
First, we see that Judas was allowed to do what was predicted;
secundo ostendit quomodo adimpleretur, ibi cum ergo accepisset ille buccellam, exivit continuo.
and second, how it was done: he therefore having received the morsel, went out immediately.
Circa primum tria facit.
John does three things with the first:
Primo ponit verba Domini permittentis;
first, he gives the words of our Lord, allowing Judas to act;
secundo manifestat ipsorum verborum obscuritatem;
second, he mentions that the meaning of these words was not clear;
tertio subdit quomodo illa verba fuerunt ab apostolis intellecta.
and third, he states how the apostles understood them.
1815. Verba autem Domini sunt ista quod facis, fac citius. Quae quidem verba non sunt praecipientis, seu consulentis, cum peccatum cadere non possit sub praecepto et consilio divino, quia dicitur in Ps. XVIII, 9: praeceptum Domini lucidum illuminans oculos, sed sunt verba permittentis. Nam, ut dictum est, diabolus miserat in cor Iudae ut traderet eum, scilicet Iesum, quod iam tractaverat cum principibus; sed implere non poterat nisi ipse Christus permitteret: quia supra X, 18: nemo tollet a me animam meam: sed ego pono eam a me ipso; Is. LIII, 7: oblatus est quia ipse voluit.
1815. Our Lord’s words were: that which you do, do quickly. This is not a command or a counsel, since sin cannot be commanded or counseled, because the command of the Lord is pure, enlightening the eyes (Ps 19:8). It is, rather, a permission. As we have seen, the devil had put it into the heart of Judas to betray Jesus, and he had already made arrangements with the chief priests. Yet he could not carry this out unless Christ himself gave permission, because no man takes it away from me, but I lay it down of myself (John 10:18); he was offered because it was his own will (Isa 53:7).
Sunt etiam verba crimen proditionis exprobrantis, ut ostenderet quod dum ille conferret beneficia, iste intentaret mortem; Ps. c. XLIX, 21: arguam te et statuam contra faciem tuam.
These words also reprimand the evil act of betrayal, and imply that while Christ was conferring benefits on him, Judas was planning his death: but now I rebuke you, and lay the charge before you (Ps 50:21).
Sunt etiam verba ad opus nostrae redemptionis anhelantis, ut Augustinus dicit. Non tamen praecepit facinus, sed praedixit, non tam in perniciem perfidi saeviendo, quam ad salutem fidelium festinando; Lc. XII, 50: Baptismo habeo baptizari, et quomodo coarctor donec perficiatur?
As Augustine says, they are also the words of one who eagerly desires to carry out the work of our redemption. Still, Christ was not commanding the crime, but predicting it. He was not so much seeking the ruin of the one who betrayed him as he was hurrying to become the salvation of believers: I have a baptism to be baptized with; and how I am constrained until it is accomplished! (Luke 12:50).
1816. Verba autem Domini obscura erant tantum ad discipulos; et ideo dicit hoc autem nemo scivit discumbentium ad quid dixerit. In quo datur intelligi quod verba Christi adeo profunda sunt et humanum intellectum excedentia, quod non plus inde capere possumus nisi quantum ipse revelat; Prov. XXV, 2: gloria Domini est celare verbum.
1816. What our Lord said was not clear to the disciples. John says, now no man at the table knew to what purpose he said this to him. We can understand from this that the words of Christ are so profound and so above human understanding that we can understand no more of them than what he reveals: it is the glory of God to conceal the word (Prov 25:2).
1817. Sed hic oritur quaestio. Cum enim Ioanni Dominus personam proditoris designasset, dicens: ille cui intinctum panem porrexero, et dedisset panem intinctum Iudae: nimium videntur rudes fuisse discipuli, quod verbum Domini non intellexerunt.
1817. A question arises here. Since our Lord had indicated to John who the traitor was, saying, it is he to whom I will give this bread when I have dipped it (John 13:26), and then he gave it to Judas, the disciples seem to have been exceedingly dull not to have understood what he had just said.
Ad quod dicendum est, quod Dominus verba illa occulte dixerat Ioanni tantum, ut non fieret proditor manifestus. Cuius ratio est, quia Petrus ita fervidus erat in amore Christi quod si pro certo scivisset Iudam fuisse Christum traditurum, statim occidisset eum.
I answer that our Lord said this privately to John in order not to reveal the betrayer. The reason for this being that Peter loved Christ so fiercely that had he been certain that Judas was about to betray him, he would have quickly killed him.
1818. Sed cum Ioannes unus esset ex discumbentibus, adhuc incidit alia quaestio, cur dixerit, quod nemo scivit discumbentium.
1818. Since John himself was one of those at the dinner, why did he say, no man at the table knew to what purpose he said this to him?
Ad quod dicendum est, quod consuetudo boni animi et innocentis est ut etiam alios procul ab iniquitate esse credat, a qua seipsos noverunt immunes. Quia igitur Ioannes innocentissimus erat, et a proditionis iniquitate semotus, nequaquam suspicabatur quod discipulus in tantum iniquitatis prodiret.
I answer that it is usual for one who is good and without evil to believe that others also are without evil. Now John was extremely good and would never consider becoming a betrayer. Thus he never suspected that another disciple would commit such a great crime.
1819. Quid autem discipuli veram causam verborum ignorantes de ipsis verbis aestimarent, subdit Evangelista, dicens quidam autem ex ipsis, scilicet discipulis, putabant, quia loculos habebat Iudas etc.
1819. Now the Evangelist tells us what the disciples, ignorant of the real reason Jesus was speaking, thought he meant: some of the disciples thought, because Judas had the money bag, that Jesus had said to him.
Ubi sciendum est, quod Dominus Deus caeli, qui dat escam omni carni, loculos habuit, non quod possideret aliquid terrenum, sed a fidelibus oblata conservans, suis necessitatibus et aliis indigentibus subveniret: quos quidem loculos Iudas conferebat.
Here we should note that the Lord God of heaven, who feeds all living things, had a money bag, not to own the things of earth, but to save the offerings of believers and so provide for his own necessities and the needs of others. This money bag was in the care of Judas.
In quo datur exemplum, ut Augustinus dicit, quod Ecclesia potest habere pecuniam et reservare pro necessitatibus imminentibus.
As Augustine says, this teaches us that the Church can have and reserve money for its immediate needs.
In quo etiam instruimur, quod Ecclesiastica pecunia sit expendenda solum in duobus. Primo quidem in his quae pertinent ad cultum divinum; unde dicit eme ea quae opus sunt nobis ad diem festum, idest quibus Deum colere possumus in die festo; Malach. c. III, 10; inferte omnem decimam in horreum meum, et sit cibus in domo mea. Deinde vero in his quae pertinent ad pauperum sustentationem, ut subdit aut egenis aliquid daret.
It also teaches us that the Church’s money should be used for only two things. First, for what pertains to divine worship; for we read, buy those things which we have need of for the feast, that is, what we can use to worship God on the festival day: bring the full tithes into the storehouse, that there may be food in my house (Mal 3:10). Second, its money can be used to help the poor, so he adds, or that he should give something to the poor.